The worst fight you've been in.

I've stood my ground millions of times, I;ve been beaten up, kicked in the face. Fought back.

It's a simple point to make, also hardly is that being a pussy for putting down fighting, thats like saying crying is a pussy thing. I hold that if someone cries(from emotional reasoning) it takes more balls to do that, than to not cry because it will make you "look like a fag".

Maybe you are just way to steezy for me to get
 
but why make a thread that says fighting is dumb? everyone knows that but its not gonna stop anyone....

oh and i am.
 
There was this one time I was at a bar, some guy was giving a girl shit, so i took him outside to fight. Before long there was penetration.
 
Clearly everyone DOESN'T know that, and it is justified by the fact that there is a thread titled. "best fight you have ever been in"
 
And StEeZy i made this thread because I CARE about human LIFE and freedom.

I hope that concept isnt too hard for you to understand.
 
Fighting is imbedded in our nature dumbass. Look around the animal kingdom. How many times do you see two lions or bears duke it out over a female or a piece of food?

I'm tired of all this "fighting doesn't solve anything" bullshit. Fighting solves the need some people have for violence. I know it sounds psychotic, but it's true. Humans have a need to shed their violent behavior. Now drawing the line is where it gets complicated. Should someone beat someone unconcious with a bat? No. Should someone get smacked up a little bit once in theri life? Yes.

Our society is so overprotected that a fight seems like the end of the world. Look back 60 years, fights were no big deal, why? Because nobody took them so seriously. Now you have people that get beat up and come back with 10 others just to beat the other person up worse. This is where fighting becomes an issue, when it is taken so seriously for pride that you have to go as far as killing the other person just to get your sense of accomplishment fulfilled.

Again, it brings us to the argument of guns and killing. Guns give people lots of power, but when they abuse the power of the gun, shit hits the fan.
 
I had a pool cue broken over my back, and then a whiskey bottle to the head. All I did was bump into a guy on the way into a bar in montreal
 
A fan of naturalistic morality I see???.

I simply am stating there is more logical ways to solve disputes over things. We aren't talking about fighting over food or women dumbass. This is about people fighting purely to cause trouble(as was clear in the best fight thread). So your point is hardly valid.

"Fighting doesn't solve anything"

seriously come on man, I never made that point, I simply claimed that fighting is pretty whack.

But on that note, as far as filling our need for violence (which I don't deny), there are other methods that seem more.... evolved. You can box, do martial arts, sparr. All those seem to make more sense than bottling someone, or curb stomping them.

"Drawing the line"

If you are educated in psychology, sociology, or epistimolgy: then you know that society doesn't work that simply. No one would follow that invisible line of acceptable violence.

I don't see your logic on guns, it is a weapon, much the same as a bat or chain. There is no differnece, they are used to kill.

As far to your point about it being human nature to keep fighting, animals fight for REASONS such as food and mating, in a first world society such as ours, we don't NEED to fight over the one female, or the one hunk of stale meat. Do wolves or cougars fight for no reason, or for pride, No they do not.

We are taught that fighting and violence are commendable. Though this is not where i want to take the argument you raised. As a nurture versus nature argument would be rather long.
 
All I saw was fighting is whack. I based my argument completely on that statement thank you very much.

You never said what we are fighting over and to imply it by saying fighting is whack is hardly a clear statement.

I never said you made that argument. I was actually basing that on the general consensus of opinions that involve what you started off saying.

If you would actually READ what I said, I said curb stomping and bottling were out of line. In a sense I am agreeign with you on that and then ironically you turn it against me? Hm...

What do you mean if I am educated? I never made a point to say that everyone will follow this. I said they SHOULD and society SHOULD. Obviously people will always take it to the next level and increase the violent acts with revenge etc. Again you have completely misinterperated my whole point.

Actually you're wrong. Packs of wolves often fight to see who is the "leader" of the group thus determining pride, strength, and overall domination. Much like what we see in today's fights such as UFC. It comes around as a status symbol.

Read my whole argument again, I'm glad you actually took the time to respond, but you completely missed everything I was trying to state.
 
Except for the fact that every single point he made was stretched out of context.

If I had said those things, then yes it would have been a solid argument.
 
i barely ever get into fights, i am good at talking shit, but i would never start a fight. But i stand up for myself and usually scare the hell out of ppl with my city accent and how loud i talk.
 
People who have nothing better to do than do drugs sell drugs and go lookin around to pick fights and beat up people for no reason honestly have no purpose in exsisting..

people like that should be stripped of any rights.
 
well the nice thing about being 5'11" and 175 is that people typically dont try to pick fights with you. but once i stole my friends car just to piss him off and he got pretty pissed. he coulda kicked my ass also, he was a beast and it was his birthday. other than that i really dont fight kids that often. i fought a kid before soccer practice once in front of like half the soccer team, and he was our best player. it was sick i kicked his ass
 
not masturbating keeps testosterone locked up in the body which in turn leads to aggresion and fighting obviously, you say fighting is necesary, but as is masturbating...masturbation releases tension and aggresion, masturbate more and there will be less fighting...BUT fighting releases a lot more anger than jerking it, so everyone needs to find a happy medium..

i just kinda ran with some topic from ladies men about masturbating releasing tension, and it sounded legit to me
 
A key point you chose not to follow up on that i made, is that people will not follow that line.

How exactly do you plan to ingrain this point of acceptable violence in people?

As well, earlier on I stated that i made this thread in response to the best fight thread, in which many stupid acts of senseless violence were claimed
 
It's hardly valid to base this on the "general consensus of what I am saying".

Saying what society should do is weak and useless. Social philosophy is made of oughts and ought nots. As far as violence being ingrained in our nature you also failed to respond to my statement of other outlets for violence other than fighting. I've been 5 years without a fight, and I'm all the happier for it. Do I have pent up agression, no, I in fact feel fantastic.

You stated that we had a need for violence, claim i miss the point. But yet choose to ignore the fundamental points I raised.

Those being: There are other alternatives to fighting

Explain a way to enforce this line

As far as the education point, I meant if you have the learning to start a discussion on those terms. Not saying you are not intelligent enough to argue. Simply carving out a place to found my arguments without using terminology you might not be familiar with.
 
Wolves and animals fight for survival instinct. Whoever is in charge can ensure survival.

Humans have extinguished the need for that, much as Nietzche said God is dead, I am saying violence is dead.

(i hate quoting nietzche, such an asshole)

If you want to end this here, then we can, if you actually want a serious non confrontational discussion on the ingrained nature of violence in humanity, and the need for it in first world cultures. Then by all means i am game
 
I'm going to be totally honest, I did not grasp anything from these three posts. I'm not getting where your argument is whether it's similar or different than mine, but I would love to debate this if I could figure out what you are arguing...I'll do my best to make my point clear.
 
First of all, I never said people would follow the line. I never said it would happen, I just said it would work.

I never said I planned to, just that I believe it should happen, I know it won't (back to human nature trying to out do the next.)

Again, I didn't know what your argument was you only made one short sentence and a thread.
 
Basically you think people need an outlet of violence, (an acceptable amount of fighting).

I say we don't need that.

Our reasoning behined human nature, and socio-ethics on that matter seem to be the same.
 
That's awesome, you choose to take out rage in otehr aspects than violence. Have you ever seen fight club? Some people like to fight. I am simply saying that fighting is taken far too seriously in today's society. Fighting really isn't a big deal as I have said. When weapons, uneven numbers, and the intent to seriously injure a person are brought into the aspects of the fight, then it becomes over the top.

Again, if you would make your points a little bit more clear instead of manipulating mine, I might be able to give you a decent counter argument. You are hardly stating opinions and attacking mine for what you derive them out of context to be.
 
This is my point.

Human nature has an immense need for revolt, for agression, for conflict. Traditionally we resolve these conflicts through violence, and the cost to that can be tragic (namely death).

Through our overruse of violence, and extreme violence we harbour an acceptance of it, and one that is not necessarily needed. There are much safer ways for human kind to sort out our differences. As for the need for agression, there can even be safer methods of fighting, such as boxing and martial arts.

On a political context, we have further moved towards eqaulity, the amount of fights has gone down overrall, as has crime, and I am simply saying that perhaps we are evolving out of the need for violence. (as opposed to news media that claims fights increase, situations of fighting have gone down overrall).

Wether or not there is an acceptale line of violence is a slippery slope, for that can always be stretched, and is almost impossible to enforce. As such we can leave this aside as it is no longer of use to us.

Does human nature have a use for conflict, yes of course, it is what progresses humanity, technology, society and so on. But conflict need not involve violence.

As to your eariler point of fighting not being considered a big deal, it was also less common for a person put through bullying and torture to openly admit mental health issues because of it (partly due to lack of science, and of acceptance of mental health issues). If you have ever been victimized, you will understand this, if you haven't than it would be very hard to grasp.

I'm coming from the perspective of someone put through shit most of my life, as well as being a humanist, a utilitarian, a socialist, and a believer in absurdity of meaning. So there are bound to be fundametal differences in our views.

I guess my points are, the survival instinct of fighting as a means of survival can be adapted into less destructive ways, and that fighting being acceptable only can occur when both sides are willing and rational, something that would be impossible to enforce.

 
I normally agree with a lot of things you say on here, but what you said was boarderline social darwinism. Please never justify a human social occurance with comparisons to a lion or a bear. Both of those animals are a Species, Genus, Family, and an Order away from humans. There is a reason humans have evolved to where they are. The largest difference between humans and the rest of the living organisms that inhabit the world is the phenomenon of Culture. No organism even come remotely close to us in the category of social interaction.

"Fighting solves the need some people have for violence."

There are some people that have a need for having sex with children. They have a "need" don't they... so what we'll just draw a line... idk 1 child a month sounds about good? What do you think? Many species of birds practice a form of Kin Selection known as Siblicide where they kill their brothers and sisters in an effort to increase their own direct fitness. This is grounds to allow brothers and sisters to fight amongst each other. We'll draw a line right? You're only allowed to kick your little brothers ass enough so that he becomes submissive. Fair enough, huh?

Violence is prevelent in men because of simple things like testosterone. But you can not fully justify cultural events with biological reasoning. In the 1800's a man by the name of Herbert Spencer used biological reasoning to explain why poor people were poor and rich people were rich.

"Our society is so overprotected that a fight seems like the end of the world."

A fight in society is "the end of the world". The loser is often left physically injurred and socially humiliated. If lions had the cultural and communication skills to round up his buddies and come back and fuck the other lion up he would.

Simply put:

Biology is not greater than culture.

 
Much Much better,

I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think violence can ever be weeded out of our biological/natural make-up. I think you are taking my point on fighting a bit too far to the claim of recent socioligical violence. Fighting can be just as safe as boxing or martial arts. I mean sure you get a bloody nose, cut on your face, a bloddy lip, maybe a broken nose, but you are really not more apt to die in a regular fistfight regulated by your peers than in a sporting event regulated by an official. Granted when people get carried away and numbers rally, shit can happen, but I'm talking primitave 1vs1 fight where it gets broken up before anyone does get really hurt.

I know the line as to when fighting should stop and not start is very hard to determine, but I'm not saying it will work perfectly. I'm just saying if people were given that judgement, then fighting would be a very acceptable thing to most people.

I'm not talking bullying, torturing, or jumping. I'm talking straight up conestual fighting. Where both parties agree to it.

Like I said, I don't expect everyone to think like me about fighting. I know some people's nature is just flat out different than mine. However, I am very open to hear what they have to say about the topic.

 
I know I was sort of being a hippocrite, because I have told people also not to compare the animal kindom to our social construct, but alas I am guilty.

Sexual molestation and violence are far too differently present in society that it would be radical to compare them.

As I was saying, I know it's impossible to draw the line, I was simply putting if fighting is controlled inside of a culture that it wouldn't be out of the question to allow it.
 
Violence is also prevelant in human nature because of greed, jealousy, and a number of other determinants that stress our everyday lives.
 
I understand where you are coming from, I just find it highly unlikely that these controlled fights wont go out of control far too often.

I also don't believe 1v1 fighting relieves the need for the chaos we crave. Seriously what is amazingly fun is stage diving and dancing at small hardcore shows, but fortunately in my town no one tries to hurt anyone. 1v1 fighting doesnt relieve the chaos and madness of nature that we lack.
 
With today's society there is no way they could ever be controlled, but with a little soci-evolution who knows what might happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top